Shoal Creek Tresspass Closure!

[duckydoty]

When we floating Shoal? Any time in Feb is good for me

[moguy1973]

I was going to suggest what Al suggested. Get a hundred or so canoes and kayaks to float down Shoal to make a point. I think it's a great idea.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Let us analyze this letter and interpret what I think it is saying.

Ok, this is funny. Just as soon as I said I hadn't heard anything, I had apperantly recieved a letter in the mail yesterday from my lawyer. Here is what it says:

I have met again witht the prosecuting attorney and he has made a recommendation on your tresspass charge from last summer. He is willing to dismiss the charge against you if you voluntarily agree in the future to avoid going on Mr. Prater's property.

He is not saying I can't float this section, only stay off of Prater's land.

The prosecutor understands and argrees that there is a difference of legal opinion as to the ownership of creek property, its usage by passers-by, versus claims of property owners.

It seems as if the prosecutor is aware of the E v. D and that we do have the right to be on the water and doesn't really want to try and push the issue. Espeically since there is an outfitter now running float trips over the same section. I think what he is saying is "I am not sure I can win this case and I really don't even want to try". I am sure he has taken the time to look at other cases tried in lower courts in Missouri and finds rulings going both ways. I am sure in some of those cases, either they didn't have the money to fight it, or had counsel that was not up to snuff on EvD.

However, he is mostly concerned that there be no personal confrontation between a canoer or fisherman and a property owner that might escalate into a physical or violent confrontation where one party or the other may be hurt or worse.

This is what I think is the key sentence. Having just stated that he may or may not win, he knows(I' kinda guessing here) that Prater is a luntic. And if I did win, if I went back and had a picnic on Prater's gravel bar, it is very likely that he would become very violent and death is possible. It is possible to avoid this and still float that section.

If you would be in agreement to this, the can be dismissed and no further court appearance necessary.

If you want your date in court about the usage of gravel bars or creek property and make it a test case, then we will have the judge set it for trial and we will have a hearing about it.

Now as stated, this will not be a case about the right to float and fish, but about accessing the gravel bar. Which is something I don't have to do in this area since his land is at the begining of the float. The rest of the land owners on this section have stated that they are not concerned with floaters accessing "their" gravel bars as long as they don't leave trash behind.

So in reality we have one lunitic landowner that can be easily avoided. The only question I have for the prosecutor is if one Prater's trees is lying across the water and safe passage is not possible, am I allowed to portage???? I would rather ask his opinion on that outside of court instead of spending a butt load of cash and find out he doesn't think so and then have to spend more cash to take it to a higher court.

I am kinda on the fence on this. One side says, take it all the way. The other says, you got a pass to float, just float it and take your chances on the tree issue. That would be the only need to be on his property anyway.

???????????????????????????????

We are scheduled back on February 15th. Please le me know whether you are willing to be done with this at this time and close the file, or proceed with trial.

You guy's don't know how much I appreciate all of the donations. In reality I think the true cost to be about 3K. That is something that at this point, I can't do. But after reading the way I interpreted the letter, what do you know think????????????

[Justin Spencer]

Sounds like with this crazy SOB it might be best to let sleeping dogs lie, a ruling might prevent further charges from being pressed but probably won't prevent further harrassment by Pricker.

[drew03cmc]

Sounds like a party on some gravel bars. We would be below the high water mark, pick up all of our trash and fish along the way

[Outside Bend]

I like the idea of a float in. I just don't know if it would have the desired outcome.

If it's like Chief says, and most landowners are fine with floating save one turd, floating a hundred canoes down the stream may wind up making more enemies than friends. I'll admit I don't know the law that well- but it may be possible for a landowner to file a nuisance suit regarding such an event. I'd definitely let local law enforcement, prosecuting attorneys, and constituent groups know about the event- but in a state which values private property rights, turning it into a media circus may galvanize support on the opposing side, too.

IMO it'd be best to take a pragmatic approach. Find support amongst other user groups, elected and appointed officials, walk softly but carry a big stick, and most of all- try and keep the issue from polarizing into another landowners vs. sportsmen argument. There's enough landowners out there hunting, fishing, and floating public waterways that I think the heartburn faced by many western (and eastern states), could possibly be avoided here.

[Greasy B]

I would be Happy to make a financial contribution as well. I would also be there with everyone for "make a statement" float. I wonder how we could get other river/conservation interest involved? The float industry played a huge role in the Meramec dam referendum, that kind of support might carry this to a positive outcome. The main objective should be to not let Missouri stream access laws become like Colorado or Wyomings.

Chief, thanks for your attitude and actions as well as for keeping us informed.

[ness]

I guess I didn't realize this was still an open case. I thought you got a pass if you promised to stay away for a while. What's the potential fine or sentence if you're convicted?

The letter says the PA wants you to AVOID going on Prater's property. That's pretty tame language, and really doesn't mean squat. It's really just a way to conclude this thing -- they know they aren't assured of a win, and neither are you. The PA is likely telling Prater he's taking a chance because he's on shakey ground.

I don't agree with the guys railing on the attorney. He'd have to spend a bunch of time researching it, building a case, going to trial. He's paid by the hour and he doesn't want to get stiffed if you lose your courage -- so a retainer. But he would love to get you to say yes and start the meter running.

If all these guys willing to chip in covered all your costs (BTW, they won't), and you won, then what would we have? A crazy landowner with an even bigger grudge, and the same old gun-toting friends. Float a hundred guys through there, including a couple bonafide big mouths, and it'll be be a mess for sure. Oh, you may have the law on your side (when they get there) but they're not gonna take too kindly to everybody stirring the pot. It'll end up worse than it is, regardless of the law.

It costs money to adjudicate these things -- that's just the way it works. So fight it all the way up until you get a satisfactory result. You'll be broke but have the satisfaction of sitting on his friggin' gravel bar telling stories about how you whooped this guy in Chief v. Prater.

Screw the bravado. There are better ways to spend your time and money.

[eric1978]

If this case were to be pursued, Ness, it wouldn't really be about the right to sit on Prater's gravel bar. The point would be to take it to the highest court possible to solidify floaters' rights in MO in general...all streams, not just Shoal.

But I do agree it would be a very costly venture (definitely more than $1500 or even $3000 if it was taken to fruition), and fruition is far from guaranteed. It's possible it could go the wrong way and we end up actually losing more rights.

It's a gamble, and only Chief can make the decision whether or not to put himself on the line and pursue it. I think he would find a lot of support here and from other organizations like MSA and possibly others. But still, the outcome seems pretty dubious, and I'm not sure I'd wanna do it if I were in Chief's shoes. Even if all the costs were covered through donations it would still be a very time consuming headache.

It would be a interesting battle, though, for sure, and we'd at least get some answers to the questions we've been asking for years.

[sean c]

Sounds like a lose/lose to me Chief. Eric and Ness make some great points. If you decide to fight you can count me in for a donation. Good luck.